5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

   I commend my hon. Friend on her speech and on securing the debate. As she knows, this issue is also felt incredibly keenly in the neighbouring constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, which I represent. While the debate about whether it is renewables or oil and gas is a false one, the fact is that skilled workers, whose jobs are being lost in the North sea right now, are the exact workers who we will need in the future to deliver cleaner energy and a more sustainable future. Those jobs do not exist in the UK right now, and they are being lost to the United Arab Emirates, Riyadh, Australia, Mexico and Canada. We need to do what we can to maintain those jobs in north-east Scotland by supporting our oil and gas industry and removing the punitive energy profits levy, which is driving people away from the country and driving companies to make redundancies.

   Hansard source
2. 14 Oct 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

   Northern Ireland Troubles

   I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The last Government legislated to draw a line under troubles-era litigation. That litigation was inevitably weighted against those who sought to protect our country from terrorism. It was inevitably weighted against those who keep records, and whose servicemen are easy to locate and contact. Even today, vexatious claims are being made. Only last week a judicial review of a 1991 case was rightly thrown out by the High Court in Belfast. The judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from…reality”, but not before the former special forces soldier at the centre of it had had to endure four years of investigation. Mindful of cases such as this, the last Government sought to draw a line. Through their actions today this Government are erasing that line, and as they do so, many former servicemen will again feel, with profound unease, that the lawyers are coming. I hope the House will spare a thought for them this afternoon. I know we will have a lot of time to debate the legislation that the Government are laying, but there are a number of specific questions that I would like to ask the Secretary of State. First, on the resumption of inquests, will he tell the House how many inquests will be restored and how many will be referred to the Solicitor General? Can he specifically tell the House whether that list will include the 1987 Loughgall case? Secondly, civil cases are to reopen. It is thought that at the time of prohibition, many hundreds of such cases—affecting perhaps thousands of people—were before the Belfast courts. What is the Northern Ireland Office’s calculation of the number of civil cases that are now likely to proceed? I ask that because there are clear financial consequences to reopening legacy in this way. The Secretary of State referred to the £250 million already committed—indeed, it was committed by the last Government to deal with the legacy as we framed it—but it is now clear that the new legacy commission is to have a much bigger remit than the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. If so, will its budget be increased? If not, how will it be expected to function? Similarly, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has raised very serious concerns about the amount of money that it will need to support reopened inquests and civil cases. Policy Exchange has placed the cost on the police at around £90 million, at a time when police numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low. There is a very real prospect that without additional funding from the Secretary of State, frontline policing in Northern Ireland will be further reduced. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that that will not happen? Thirdly, the Government have today briefed journalists that legislation will ban Gerry Adams from receiving compensation for his detention in the 1970s, but the Secretary of State’s statement made no reference to that. Can he tell the House unequivocally that Mr Adams will not receive one penny of compensation? Fourthly, the Secretary of State listed a number of protections for veterans in court, but it is already the case that anonymity, age-related considerations and remote hearings are available at the discretion of the court. That was apparent to the Tánaiste on 19 September, when he emphasised that no new protections would be available to veterans. Does the Secretary of State agree with Mr Harris? There has also been some confusion about whether these protections will extend to paramilitaries. On 25 September, the Prime Minister claimed that they will not. Can the Secretary of State be definitive for the House? Lastly, there is the question of the involvement of the Republic of Ireland in legacy. This has proved deeply controversial, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be asked questions about it this afternoon. However, I was interested to see that the Republic has made commitments to get the Garda to investigate unresolved troubles-related incidents within its jurisdiction, and to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the legacy commission. If that is to happen, it is to be welcomed, because during the troubles the UK repeatedly sought extraditions from the Republic to bring terrorist charges. In the vast majority of cases, they were turned down. Following 1998, the former Irish Justice Minister, Michael McDowell, said that the Irish Government gave a de facto amnesty to the IRA. Indeed, there are many instances of possible collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA, which have never received the attention they deserve: Kingsmill, the murder of Ian Sproule, Bloody Friday, Teebane, La Mon—the list goes on. I sincerely hope that the Republic will now engage sincerely, deeply and honestly, and I hope the Secretary of State will ensure that it does.

   Hansard source
3. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

   The Global Irregular Migration and Trafficking in Persons Sanctions Regulations 2025

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to speak about the regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the Minister for setting them out a bit more detail. In the context of these regulations, it is important to come straight to the point: Labour has lost control of our borders. I therefore have a number of important questions to ask the Minister. The Government first announced the new sanctions regime in January, which is 10 months ago, and only now are we seeing the enabling legislation come before Parliament. Why has it taken so long to get here? That delay hardly reflects a sense of urgency on the part of a Government who claim to be serious about stopping the boats and smashing the criminal gangs. Crucially, when will we see the sanctions take effect? Has the FCDO identified targets? How many individuals or entities are being considered? Is it tens, hundreds or just a handful? It would also be helpful if the Minister could give us the confidence to know that the sanctions unit has sufficient resourcing and expertise to deliver on the new regime, while also maintaining capacity to deal with existing sanctions work on Russia, Iran and other priority areas. The test for any sanctions regime is not its announcement, but the implementation and the impact. The measures must lead to real disruption of trafficking routes, real consequences for those financing or profiting from the trade and, ultimately, fewer people illegally crossing the channel. Unfortunately, the Government’s record speaks for itself, as it is important again to note in the context of the regulations: this year we have seen record high numbers of small boat crossings, with more than 34,000 already, including over 1,000 in just one day the other week. Meanwhile, more asylum seekers are being housed in hotels than when this Government came to office. Ministers promised to “smash the gangs”, but the gangs are still operating, the boats are still coming and the traffickers still see the UK as a soft target. And no wonder, given that Labour—including the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary—voted against life sentences for people-smuggling gangs, the very same gangs that this Government now claim they want to smash. To be clear, the previous Conservative Government delivered the powers that this Government now claim that they want: powers to impose visa penalties on countries refusing to take back their nationals; a landmark returns agreement with Albania, which cut illegal crossings from the country by more than 90%; and a deterrent approach to illegal migration that our European partners are now seeking to emulate. Instead of building on that record, this Government have repealed the Rwanda deterrent, weakened our border laws, and allowed illegal immigrants to claim asylum and even access British citizenship. To conclude, the Government must show that the measures in this regime are more than just another announcement or gimmick, like the one in, one out deal with France that has removed just over a couple of dozen people while thousands more have arrived. The Opposition will not oppose these regulations today, but we expect to see them work.

   Hansard source
4. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Tom Tugendhat

   Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

   The Minister and I have been friends for many years, so it gives me no pleasure to say this. The statement that he read out today, no doubt under instruction, has thrown out more chaff and set up more straw men than a Russian disinformation campaign. It is pure fabrication to claim that those are the relevant points and, sadly, he knows it. The Minister knows it, because we discussed many of these issues when he was in opposition and I was in his place. He knows it, because the various security and defence reviews that have been updated in the past four years have set out the clear position of the threat. He knows it, because I stood at the Dispatch Box, as he now does, on 15 April 2024 and made clear the position of China being a threat. And the Minister knows it, I am afraid, because the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, set out how the DPP has asked a very clear question: why have we not had the information in time for these cases to proceed? That is exactly the right question. The DPP did not say that the evidential threshold was not met. If it had not been met, the arrests should never have happened and the Minister should rightly be hauling the head of MI5, the head of counter-terror policing and the Treasury solicitor before him for abuse of power. He is not doing that because he knows the threshold was met. Instead, the Minister should read the words of the DPP—the threshold is “no longer met”. That means there has been a change, and there has been a change because something has changed. That change could either be a commission or an omission, and from what we have heard today—from the way in which the Government have very carefully used language—it sounds much more likely that something has not been done than that it has. As my friend the Minister knows, simply ignoring an order is not the same thing as not receiving one. I am afraid that what this has done, and what this statement does, is advertise that the UK is not willing to defend itself against threats from hostile states. I know that that is not a position he wishes to advocate.

   Hansard source
5. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Steve Barclay

   Topical Questions

   In April, the Government described their decision to approve a major scheme to unlock over 8,500 homes next to Cambridge North station after six years in planning as “nationally significant”. Just four months later, the Government scrapped the whole thing. How is that consistent with the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will back getting Britain building?

   Hansard source
6. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Smith

   Devolution: Impact on Economic Growth

   Devolution is starting off well in North Yorkshire, but North Yorkshire council is really concerned about the upcoming local government settlement, which will obviously be challenging for all councils. May I urge the Secretary of State in his new role to look carefully at the most rural county in England and the particular challenges that it has in delivering services?

   Hansard source
7. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Topical Questions

   Do the Government accept that it is possible to bring in elected mayors and new strategic authorities without forcibly merging county and district councils in unwanted, cumbersome and remote unitary authorities?

   Hansard source
8. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Manchester Terrorism Attack

   As in the case of the attack on Parliament in 2017, this attack was a combination of the use of a vehicle as a deadly weapon and an attempt to break into premises to kill people indiscriminately. On both occasions, brave men had to sacrifice their life to prevent access. Would it not be a sensible first step for all vulnerable premises to have doors that can be easily locked, so that people do not have to put themselves at risk physically holding them closed? I congratulate the Home Secretary on an excellent statement.

   Hansard source
9. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

   The Minister says that it is for another Department to decide whether the Chinese Government should have a new embassy. That is certainly true, but the proposed new embassy is so large that it would be the biggest embassy in any country anywhere in Europe. That has national security implications, and if the Minister wants to encourage people to believe that the Government are not cosying up to communist China, he should make recommendations accordingly. May I just ask the Minister about the extract he read from the 1911 Act? I will read a slightly fuller one, though still one with ellipses: “If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State…obtains or communicates to any other person any…document or information which…might be…directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; he shall be guilty of felony”. My reading of that extract from the Act is that the felony lies in the disclosure to anyone at all—it does not have to be directly to an enemy. Whether or not China was regarded as an enemy at the time, the nature of the sensitive material disclosed meant it was a felony, even if it was disclosed to a China that was not regarded as an enemy. Surely the trial should have gone ahead.

   Hansard source
10. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Topical Questions

    T2. Whether Essex ends up with three, four or five authorities under the local government reforms, my constituents will certainly come under an authority that is no longer local. As part of the reforms, will more powers be devolved to town and parish councils that are able to understand and properly reflect their local residents?

    Hansard source
11. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    Digital ID

    If it were not so sinister, it would be quaint to hear the Secretary of State say that it is international, novel and modern, and therefore it must be good. Try telling that to Jaguar Land Rover workers, M&S customers, or postmasters and postmistresses. Will the right hon. Lady recognise what I recognised when I was the Home Office Minister responsible for national cyber-security: when one concentrates data and makes it interconnected and interoperable, one also concentrates risk, and the risk is that people lives will be damaged and possibly even destroyed?

    Hansard source
12. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister has told us that his Government’s assessment of China is a mixture of national security threats and opportunities for engagement, including economically, but does he accept that that is exactly the assessment made by the last Government? That combination, with reference to the Act and the offence we are concerned with, does not require a country only to present a national security threat, simply that it does so, perhaps in combination with other things. That is the key point, and the Minister has been clear about that, so can we be clear about what happened with the Government’s evidence? Was it the case that the Government could find no evidence of China presenting a national security threat? Was it the case that the Government internally decided that the evidence it could find would not meet the CPS’s requirements? If so, who made that determination? Was it the case that the Government did supply evidence to the CPS on that specific point, and the CPS decided it was not significant enough? If it is the latter, will the Minister publish the evidence to the House? If he does not think that is appropriate—it may not be—will he give authority to the deputy National Security Adviser to share that evidence in full with the Intelligence and Security Committee?

    Hansard source
13. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Topical Questions

    My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the Housing Minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?

    Hansard source
14. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister said categorically and very carefully that the National Security Adviser took no decisions as to the contents of the evidence provided to the CPS. Will he clarify for the House whether the NSA had any influence at all—direct or indirect, and whether about provision or omission—over the contents of that evidence, provided by his own deputy, which led to the collapse of the trial?

    Hansard source
15. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

    Baby Loss

    It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I thank him for working with me and the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) to secure the debate, and I thank my many colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. I would also like to thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), for being here himself today. It means an enormous amount to families up and down the country to see that commitment from him. I know it is an issue in which he has taken enormous personal interest. I think the most difficult meeting I had when I was doing his job many years ago was with a man called Carl Hendrickson, who came to see me a few days before I stood at that Dispatch Box to give the statement on the Morecambe Bay inquiry. Carl lost both his wife and his son at Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. A midwife mistook some fitting by his wife as just fainting. His wife died an hour later from an embolism. The next day, his son Chester died from brain damage. He came to see me with his 11-year-old son, Conrad. I will never forget it, because it was obviously going to be a very difficult meeting and I asked him whether he would like his son to sit outside with some of the civil servants while we discussed what happened. He said no, because he wanted his son to know, for the rest of his life, that he had taken his concerns about what went wrong right to the very top and asked awkward questions. And that was what he did. I owe a great debt to the Morecambe Bay families: to Carl and to Simon Davey, Liza Brady, James Titcombe and many others. The American thinker Margaret Mead had a saying: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” For me, those Morecambe Bay families were that small group of thoughtful, committed people, along with the families from Mid Staffs, Shrewsbury and Telford, East Kent, Nottingham and many other places. As we reflect in this very sad and meaningful Baby Loss Awareness Week about what has gone wrong, it is also important to remember that progress has been made since then. Since the Morecambe Bay inquiry, the overall number of baby deaths is down by about 20%. That is about 700 fewer a year, or two fewer a day. The NHS is better than it was about being honest about mistakes. There have been a lot of reforms. We have a chief inspector of hospitals and a CQC that is set up to call a spade a spade when there is poor care. We have the duty of candour, which will be further strengthened by the new Hillsborough law. We have medical examiners, we have Martha’s rule and we have “freedom to speak up” guardians. Despite those improvements, there are some warning signs. Since the pandemic, the decline in baby deaths has plateaued. The number of maternal deaths has actually increased. As the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen just said, there is big inequality. You are far more likely to die as a black or Asian mum. You are far more likely to die as a black or Asian baby, or a baby from a deprived background, than other babies. Still we have a third of NHS staff, according to the staff survey last year, saying that they are afraid to raise safety concerns, and half saying that they do not think anything will happen if they do. The thing that is so important to remember—I have said this to the House on many occasions—is that if you are in a birthing unit and present at a C-section and something goes wrong, there is nothing as a professional that you want more than to be open, honest and transparent about what happened, so that lessons can be learned and you can make sure that mistake never happens again. But our system makes that practically impossible. We have the CQC, the NMC, the General Medical Council and the trust. Lawyers get involved and people worry. There is jeopardy for clinicians: that if they are honest and open about the ordinary human mistakes that anyone can make, they will be punished for it. The result is that the one thing that needs to happen more than anything else—truthfulness to the bereaved families and learning the lessons so that the tragedy is not repeated—can be the very thing that does not happen at all. Instead, we get a five-year legal process happening and the truth is not established for maybe five, six or seven years after that. So what needs to happen to put it right? We all have our lists of things, and I echo absolutely everything that was said in the wonderful speech before mine. For me, first of all, it is absolutely essential that we get the CQC back on its feet. It went badly wrong, but under new leadership that the Secretary of State has put in place, I believe it is now going in absolutely the right direction. We must return to the one-word ratings so that parents and families know absolutely whether the care in their local hospital or NHS organisation is safe. That is really important. Secondly, we have a litigation culture. At the moment we spend about £3.5 billion annually in maternity awards for where maternity care has gone wrong, which is not far off the £4 billion total cost of all NHS maternity units. It has gone so badly wrong that many parents think that when something goes wrong, their only friend is not a doctor but a lawyer—that cannot be right. We need to have much better accountability. The Government are rightly absolutely committed to bringing back family doctors. People having their own GP would make an enormous difference, because at the moment there is no one inside the NHS to turn to when these things go wrong, and going back to the system of everyone having their own GP could make a really big difference to that. We need to support the work of brilliant charities such as Tommy’s, Sands, the Clinical Human Factors Group and Baby Lifeline in their contribution to making maternity care safer. We also need to tackle the dangerous culture of “normal” births, which still sees too many mothers steered away from getting a surgical intervention when that would be the safest route for them and their baby. Those are all important changes. I would like to say one final thing, which is that we must not return to a targets culture. I have some concerns about the new NHS league tables. I know they are set up with the best of intentions, but safety and quality is not one of the factors that ensures a move up the list. I know the Secretary of State will take great care in the way that those are implemented, but I think it is really important that there is always a bottom line—a floor—on safety and quality below which the system never goes. What I really want to say to the House, in conclusion, is that we must not lose hope. If we had the same levels of maternity safety as Sweden, one fewer baby would die every day; if we got to the same levels as Japan, two fewer babies would die every day. If we could get the NHS back on the trajectory it was on in the years leading up to the pandemic, we would be able to get to care as safe as Sweden’s in the next five or six years, so it really is something within our grasp. I will finish by saying this. The NHS was set up on the premise of equality, and the idea that no matter who we are—whether we are rich or poor, young or old, from the north or the south, from the city or the country—everyone should be able to access the healthcare they need. Everyone means every baby, too. We talk about safety more than any other healthcare system in the world. In this very sad week, when we remember all the people who have lost their dear babies and their dear loved ones in the process of having babies, let us redouble our efforts to make the NHS the safest, highest-quality healthcare system in the world.

    Hansard source
16. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Topical Questions

    Nobody but nobody believes that 1.5 million homes will be built under this Government. Although the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), spent a lot of time at the Dispatch Box, she did not answer the question about whether the Treasury will be asked to scrap stamp duty. We know that 2.8 million people said that they would consider downsizing if stamp duty were abolished, freeing up family homes of all sizes. She would not answer, so I ask the Secretary of State directly: will he ask the Treasury to scrap stamp duty—yes or no?

    Hansard source
17. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Topical Questions

    I asked for a simple yes or no, but the right hon. Gentleman struggled to give that. The truth is that we have outlined exactly where the money could come from and we have made it clear that if those on the Labour Front Bench have the guts to take on their Back Benchers, they will have the support of Conservative Members in making the expenditure cuts that are needed. The London School of Economics has estimated that £16,000 of economic activity comes with every house purchase, so if he will not agree to cutting stamp duty, will he at least agree to not putting up property taxes?

    Hansard source
18. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Iain Duncan Smith

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, the 2021 and 2023 integrated reviews were very clear. All the officials and security services said that China was a significant threat. That was sufficient not only for Ministers but for officials to give to the CPS. The question is why they did not. The question I really want to ask is about the absurdity of the role, or lack of role, of the National Security Adviser. The Government say that he was not involved in any matters of substance, but is it not the role of the National Security Adviser to be involved in all matters of substance when it comes to national security? What is the point of a National Security Adviser who does not involve themselves in matters of national security, as in this case? Instead, are we meant to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was allowed to involve themselves in substantial matters of national security in this case, but apparently not to discuss these substantial matters of national security with the National Security Adviser? This seems to me to be a matter of substantial absurdity.

    Hansard source
19. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Manchester Terrorism Attack

    Of course, we all agree with the Home Secretary, but can we dig a little deeper? There is a reason why the Jewish community is by far our most successful immigrant community, dating from the end of the 19th century. They were determined, and are determined, to integrate into our society in every single way. But let us be realistic: there are some parts of some communities who do not integrate. Will the Government say unequivocally that if someone wants to come and live here, they must think of themselves primarily as British? It does not matter what their colour or faith is—they are British. However strongly they feel about Gaza or anything else, they must approach all issues with our traditional sense of good humour and tolerance.

    Hansard source
20. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    We know the very basic facts, which is that the Director of Public Prosecutions asked for a statement from the Government to clarify that, at the time of the offence, China was a threat to national security. He says in his letter that such an assurance, or evidence, or a statement from the Government were not forthcoming. We know that the Government withheld that vital element of the case. The Minister is shaking his head, but who decided that, in the words of the DPP, it would “not be forthcoming”? Somebody decided that. He seems to be saying that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who is somehow accountable for making those decisions, but I question that point. To whom are they accountable, if not to the National Security Adviser?

    Hansard source
21. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Simon Hoare

    Topical Questions

    The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was never intended to be used by local authorities as an addendum to planning enforcement. The Secretary of State may well have seen recent media reports about this issue. Will he undertake to look into it and to issue guidance to local authorities, explaining that while they have many tools at their disposal, the Proceeds of Crime Act is not one of them?

    Hansard source
22. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Manchester Terrorism Attack

    I thank the Home Secretary for the statement, and I thank her and her team for dealing very promptly with an issue I have raised over the last couple of weeks. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Jewish community, and I thank those from the Jewish community who have reached out to me to speak about their concerns. I visited a Jewish school with the CST, and it was awful to see children—young British children— in 21st-century Britain having to do drills on protecting themselves from a lone wolf attack. We are clearly not in the right place on this. In the sentiment of dealing with the root causes, does the Home Secretary agree with me that inter-faith work has fallen off a cliff, and that that needs to be dealt with? I am also concerned about the raising of Palestinian flags in the centre Birmingham—closer to home—and Preston council’s hosting of a known Palestinian terrorist. All of these things contribute to the feeling I am getting from the Jewish community, which is that they do not feel safe in this country.

    Hansard source
23. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Manchester Terrorism Attack

    Clearly, how antisemitism is tackled by the police in our communities is key, so I would be interested to hear from the Home Secretary what specialist training our police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service—I appreciate that this is a bit off-piste; maybe she might put on her Justice hat for a moment—are receiving to help them understand the complexity of investigating, charging and prosecuting those exhibiting antisemitic views early on. There is a belief among members of the Jewish community who live near my constituency that far too many cases are dropped due to being labelled as having mitigating issues around concerns for Israel.

    Hansard source
24. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Homelessness

    I welcome the Minister to her place. Youth and overall homelessness have increased since the Government took office, and charities have been harmed by policies such as the national insurance rises imposed by the Chancellor. We welcome the additional money that the Government have allocated for tackling homelessness this winter, but it is an admission that they have failed in their pledge to reduce homelessness. The former Minister had a novel touch, and sent the figure the wrong way. I will ask this Minister the same question that I asked in the previous Session: does she accept that homelessness has risen under this Government, and will she commit to eliminating it by the end of this Parliament?

    Hansard source
25. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Manchester Terrorism Attack

    Section 12 of the Public Order Act already allows a senior police officer to place conditions on a protest march, for instance by rerouting it if the march will be noisy, disruptive or intimidating, so can the Home Secretary clarify her comments about section 12? When she talks about addressing the cumulative impact of the marches, is she still talking about allowing the rolling anti-Israel marches to go ahead, just using different routes, or does she want to give herself the power to stop them altogether?

    Hansard source
26. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    The Minister has comprehensively taken on several strawman arguments, answered questions that have not been asked, and stuck to his carefully constructed sentences. One example was: “Ministers and special advisers did not take decisions about that evidence, and they were not sighted on the contents.” But was any Minister, the National Security Adviser, any other special adviser or any senior official other than the deputy National Security Adviser, such as the Cabinet Secretary, sighted on the decision regarding the evidence sent to the CPS?

    Hansard source
27. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I am one of the parliamentarians sanctioned by China. Like many Members of this House, I am left wondering whether it was not just our offices that were spied on, but our families, our homes and our children, and in the absence of a trial, I have no way of finding out what happened. The Minister has been asked multiple times whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings in which this case was discussed. We know from the DPP that, over months and months, the CPS asked again and again for evidence that was not forthcoming. However, without the minutes of those meetings, we are not able to find out what was asked for, why it was refused or who made that decision. What means are available to this House to get hold of the minutes of those meetings, which the Government do not want to publish? What parliamentary means do we have to get hold of the minutes of meetings in which this issue was discussed and these decisions were made, so that we can find out the truth?

    Hansard source
28. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    I ask the Minister to be brief and on point regarding what this statement is actually about.

    Hansard source
29. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of that point of order. He is absolutely correct that he and I are two of the four sitting MPs who are sanctioned by China. I have been advised to say that he should seek advice from the Table Office as a first step to see how these documents can be published. The Minister has said repeatedly in responses to Members from across the House that some material may or could be made public at some point. I am not sure what that material will be, or what format it would be in, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will seek advice from the Table Office, to make sure that the information is made available, if it can be. Unless the Minister wishes to respond to that point of order, I will let the matter fall.

    Hansard source
30. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Digital ID

    Order. We have two Select Committee statements and a substantial debate later this evening, so this statement will have to conclude in 45 minutes. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep her responses even shorter and on point.

    Hansard source
31. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    The hon. Member has put his point on the record, and someone on the Government Front Bench will no doubt be making a note in order to notify the appropriate Ministers. It is appropriate for colleagues across the House to notify colleagues when they are visiting their constituencies for work and political reasons.

    Hansard source
32. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    Mr Shannon, this puts me in a very difficult position, because that is not actually a point of order, but that will make me deeply unpopular, and I cannot talk on behalf of Mr Speaker or the Prime Minister and say what they wish to do.

    Hansard source
33. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Points of Order

    It is incredibly important that timely responses are given to Back-Bench MPs who are here to secure advice, guidance and responses to their constituents. Those on the Treasury Front Bench will no doubt have heard that and will ensure that a swift response from the appropriate Department is given to the Back Bencher. Business of the House (Today) Ordered, That, at this day’s sitting, (i) the business determined by the Backbench Business Committee shall be treated as being taken on an allotted day provided under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 and, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 22D relating to the scheduling of select committee statements, select committee statements on the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Fifth Report of the Education Committee may be made after the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion; (ii) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Andy MacNae relating to baby loss may be proceeded with for up to three hours after their commencement, or until 10.00pm, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; those proceedings may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Stephen Morgan.)

    Hansard source
34. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

    We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee. Patricia Ferguson will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.

    Hansard source
35. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility

    For Members who are new to this, Back Benchers may ask questions for 10 minutes following Select Committee statements.

    Hansard source
36. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

    May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Heaton Park synagogue? I thank Mr Speaker for all his work on Members’ security. No one has worked harder to protect the integrity of our Parliament. The Security Minister is very well regarded, so I am sorry to see that he has been sent here again to make these arguments, which will not wash. This is about the ineptitude of the Government, and I cannot accept much of what he says. He has brought some updates to the House, which we acknowledge, but in essence, China spied on this Parliament and the Government are issuing us with leaflets. That is not good enough. There are Members here who have been spied on and sanctioned by China. Even Madam Deputy Speaker has been sanctioned. All MPs speaking today should be acting in the national interest—nothing else. Let us remind ourselves of what has happened. Two men have been accused of spying on MPs in this very building. The CPS has what it felt was a clear and compelling case to prosecute, but the trial has collapsed because, for months and months, the Government have refused to give the CPS vital information. That was not a mistake; it was not a misunderstanding; it looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China. Instead of admitting that, the Security Minister has come here blaming the Official Secrets Act, when we know that the Act was enough to prosecute the case. Its deficiencies had nothing to do with the Government’s failures. May I remind the House how serious this is? If the Government do not prosecute those who spy on us, it sends a message to the public that the Government do not care about their safety; it sends a message to our allies, who share intelligence with us, that Britain cannot be trusted; and it sends a message to those who spy on us that they can get away with it. Let us look at the facts. First, the Government blamed the CPS. The Minister came to the House on 15 September and claimed that he had become aware of the situation only that day, and that the CPS decision had been an entirely independent one—an assertion that he has repeated today. He said: “I am not able to talk about why the CPS has decided to make this decision.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1186.] He said that it was not for him to “speculate on the reason”. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) to “seek a meeting” if she wanted to find out the reasons. However, we now know, despite all he has just said, that the trial collapsed because the Government refused to give the CPS what it needed, and the Minister knew full well why it had collapsed. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that he spent months trying to get the Government to provide the evidence that the CPS needed. Secondly, the Government tried blaming the previous Government. Just like the Prime Minister, the Minister claims that the CPS could not prosecute because the previous Government did not describe China as a threat. I cannot believe that he would actually say that. He knows what we said, but let me remind him. For starters, the 2021 integrated review described China as—listen carefully—the “biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.” The 2023 integrated review refresh said several times that China posed—listen carefully—a threat. In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a serious threat. But even if the previous Government had not said China was a threat, which they did, this Government needed only to convince a jury that it was a threat, and the Minister knows that. I am astonished that he has repeated that nonsense today. The Minister’s and Prime Minister’s argument has been refuted by no less than a former DPP, two former Cabinet Secretaries—one a former National Security Adviser—two former heads of MI6, and a professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, who said today that Ministers’ statements so far are “misleading” about the legal position. They are all clear that those people could have been prosecuted under the old legislation. Is the Government’s position that they are all wrong and the Government are right? The Minister referred to R v. Roussev. That case last year made it easier to prosecute, not harder. As the former Director of Public Prosecutions said of recruiting people to spy on MPs, “That of itself clearly constitutes a threat to national security.” Only this Government could mess that up. We know that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, has a very close relationship with China. Are we supposed to believe that he was not involved in the “substance of the case and discussions around it”, as they say? What does that even mean? He was in those meetings, acting in the name of the Prime Minister. Do the Government really expect us to believe that he never mentioned any of this to the Prime Minister at any point? We know from the CPS that it spent months and months asking the Government for the evidence that it needed. The Government say that the NSA did not take the decision not to give it the evidence, so who did? Who made that decision—can the Minister answer that question today? Is the Government’s argument seriously that no Minister knew anything about this until the trial collapsed? If that is the case, it is astonishing. My suspicion is that that is not the case, and that Ministers did know. They had the Chinese super-embassy in their in-tray, and they are allegedly being asked to pay £1 billion in compensation for the nationalisation of British Steel. I suspect that they have decided that closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security. If that is the case, and that was the Government’s decision, they should tell us and have the backbone to admit it. They should explain it to the public, the CPS and our international allies, and let them all be the judge. This issue is not going away—there is nowhere to hide. I wrote to the Prime Minister today and would like to know when I will get a response to my questions. We have also written to the Crown Prosecution Service to ask whether the trial can be reopened if the Government finally provide the evidence that they have been holding back. We know that the evidence that the CPS needs exists. If the Government decide not to provide it, then we will know that that is because this weak Prime Minister does not have the backbone to stand up to Beijing.

    Hansard source
37. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Digital ID

    I am completely opposed to digital ID cards as a matter of principle. The proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto, and the Government have no mandate for it. It is basically a multibillion-pound gimmick to try to address the fact that small boat arrivals are up a third since they came to power and they have not got the faintest clue how to stop them. I have two very specific questions to ask of the Secretary of State. First, how much—even as a ballpark figure—will it cost to bring in this system? Secondly, if it is to be mandatory, which would be completely wrong, what would be the penalty for a citizen who refuses on principle to have digital ID?

    Hansard source
38. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Devolution: Impact on Economic Growth

    Devolution can have huge benefits for local people. Using £20 million of funding from the last Government, Stockton-on-Tees borough council has brought forward proposals to change Yarm High Street, but the council has completely failed to properly consult and work with local residents and businesses in developing the proposals, so what could be an opportunity has become a nightmare. Does the Minister agree that such changes should be done with local residents and businesses, and not forced upon them?

    Hansard source
39. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Digital ID

    The British people did not vote for a two-tier digital police state run by this failing Labour Government. This policy is undemocratic and authoritarian and will do absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration. Will the Secretary of State listen to the overwhelming volume of public opinion and drop it immediately?

    Hansard source
40. 13 Oct 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Tuesday 16 September, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology visited my constituency to officially open Google’s new data centre in Waltham Cross, an investment that I was proud to have helped secure when I was leader of Broxbourne Council. However, not only did I fail to receive notice from the Science Secretary that she would be accompanying the Chancellor, who herself informed me at the very last moment, but not one elected representative was invited to this official event. I am sure that the Government would not have been playing politics when they failed properly to notify me or Broxbourne’s fantastic growth-focused Conservative-run council, so could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please advise me how this situation can be remedied, and how I can hold Ministers to account for obvious breaches of the ministerial code?

    Hansard source